‘Miller and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 was highly anticipated as perhaps the most signficant constitutional case of this generation, stirring up such strong reactions that the judges of the Divisional Court who initially decided in favour of Ms. Miller were dubbed “Enemies of the People”. Two months after a majority of an 11-member Supreme Court confirmed that prerogative powers could not be used to invoke Article 50, however, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (hereafter referred to as the “Withdrawal Act”) received Royal Assent, conferring power on the Prime Minister to give the notification required to begin the process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The passage of the Withdrawal Act fulfilled the constitutional requirements identified in Miller formally, within the purely political timetable set by the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party’s conference and without any additional legal requirements being imposed by way of amendment. This not only sets the stage but also prepares the way for a more permanent sidelining of Parliament as the supreme legislative body in the UK’s constitution as part of the process of leaving the European Union.’

‘When the government decided to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s ruling that ministers could not lawfully use the royal prerogative to leave the EU, many lawyers, myself included, thought it a hopeless enterprise. A court of three judges – the Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales (who had been standing counsel to the government when at the bar) – had held on cogently reasoned grounds that the prior authority of an Act of Parliament was required. Nevertheless the Supreme Court sat in full, all 11 members, to hear what even the sober Constitution Unit was calling the case of the century. Well, the appeal failed, and by a decisive margin of eight votes to three. But the margin conceals what was jurisprudentially a closer-run thing than the numbers suggest.’

‘The Supreme Court’s treatment of the devolution issues in Miller is troubling, argues Aidan O’Neill QC, who examines the UK’s complex multi-national constitutional history and potential impact on the devolved political constitution.’

‘It is well known that the first national referendum in the UK was the 1975 poll on EEC membership. It is also quite well known that A.V. Dicey called for the introduction of the referendum into British politics from the 1880s onwards as a means of defeating Irish home rule. This episode was the subject of an exchange between Dominic Chambers QC and Lord Sumption in the Article 50 case.’

‘Prerogative is the enemy of the people. This has been settled as matter of law for a very long time. The constitutional settlement of 1688 made a decision for responsible and representative government. We have had no constitutional moment of similar magnitude since. All constitutional changes – some very significant – have taken place within that foundational structure. The Bill of Rights treats prerogative as the antithesis of good government. Its primary target is a range of extra-legal powers hitherto asserted by the King, pride of place being given to the power to dispense with laws and the power to suspend Acts of Parliament.’

‘It is a great pleasure to have been invited to give this year’s Law and Society Lecture. Earlier this year, in another lecture, I addressed the topic of “Judicial Leadership”. My subject on this occasion is the judicial role today, exploring some of its boundaries’

‘After years of austerity, the utopian vision of a united Europe appears to be in tatters. On the 25th anniversary of the Maastricht treaty, Youssef El-Gingihy delves into the impact of an agreement that designed the architecture of the EU.’

‘On 26 October 2015, the House of Lords debated the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. The Regulations were approved, but subject to two riders. Critics claimed that these riders constituted “fatal” amendments, and that they were therefore tantamount to a rejection of the legislation. It was argued that it is constitutionally improper for the House of Lords to reject financial legislation in this way.’

‘In popular perception the Middle Ages was a time of lawlessness and cruelty. And to a degree, that characterisation holds true. Crusades abroad, ill-disciplined governance at home, England in the early thirteenth century was not exactly enlightened.’

‘2015 is the 800th anniversary of English law’s most momentous landmark – the signing of Magna Carta. For the first time, the king’s absolute rule was limited and the first step taken towards civil liberties and individual rights for all.’

‘Let’s apply some hard history to the 13th century charter governing the obligations flowing between King John and his barons, or at least read the thing. So says Lord Sumption in a fascinating address to Friends of the British Library on 9 March.’

“Around one million Commonwealth citizens will be allowed to vote in the next general election despite not having qualified for British citizenship, in a practice that “should be brought to an end immediately”, a report has argued.”